Shartash lake area. Where to swim in summer

The history of the Russian Orthodox Church in 1943-1985 is now of great interest to researchers, but they all face archival problems in the process of studying it: most church archives today are distinguished by poor scientific description and no less poor preservation, and often remain completely closed to scientists, being run by religious organizations. All this forces researchers to turn to sources stored in the state archive, which was formed by the authorities hostile to the church and can give a one-sided idea of ​​​​the history of the church at that time. "Polit.ru" publishes an article by A.N. Marchenko "Personal files of the higher clergy of the Russian Orthodox Church for the study of church-state relations in 1943-1985", in which the author gives a detailed description of the personal files of the higher clergy stored in the state archive, taking into account the circumstances of their formation. The article was published in the journal "Domestic Archives" (2007. No. 4).

The problem of church-state relations in the USSR in 1943-1985. actively developed by researchers. Such an increased interest in it is quite justified. This is the time of the actual legalization of religious activity in the country after a period of organizational destruction of church structures, mass repressions of the clergy in the 1920s–1930s. At the same time, it is associated with significant costs in the life of the Church itself. The tragedy of the new era of church-state relations in the USSR was that the Church received and retained its legality at the cost of the hardest compromise. It acquired the right to exist in an atheistic state in exchange for complete dependence on it.

The indicated time period in the history of the Church, and in the first place the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC), was very heterogeneous. So, 1943–1953. characterized by the normalization of church-state relations: the opening of a significant number of churches and monasteries, religious educational institutions, the registration of religious societies, the expansion of publishing activities, the formation of church centers and religious-administrative structures, the creation of special state bodies for relations with religious organizations: the Council for the Russian Orthodox church (SDROC) and the Council for Religious Affairs (SDRC). In 1954-1957 there is a tendency to change the course of church policy: in the highest party spheres, supporters of its toughening are gaining strength. Nevertheless, through the efforts of the leaders of the SDRPTS and SDRK, the balance of church-state relations was maintained at the same level. In 1958–1964 The ROC is under strong pressure from the Soviet state and party structures. Councils for the affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church and the Republic of Kazakhstan are being transformed from intermediaries between the state and religious organizations into bodies of total control. Churches, monasteries, spiritual educational establishments, management structures. "Khrushchev's church reform of parish life" removes the clergy of the Russian Orthodox Church from financial and economic activities and real power in parishes. The Bishops' Council in July 1961, under pressure from the state, adopted "transformations" that were unfavorable to the Church: local authorities and representatives of the soviets became the actual owners in it. The clergy find themselves on the rights of hired workers of the church community, their activities are limited to the range of liturgical issues.

In 1965–1985 church policy is implemented by the Council for Religious Affairs under the Council of Ministers of the USSR, which came into being as a result of the merger of the SDRPTS and SDRK. Mass campaigns for the closure of churches and monasteries, administrative persecution against the clergy and church activists are being stopped. Since 1972, the registration of church societies has been resumed, their qualitative composition has been improved at the expense of people of working age. The educational and cultural level of the clergy is significantly increased. During this period, "the Church overcame its state of crisis, largely associated with the administrative onslaught ... and on the whole achieved stabilization, both in its internal state and in its relations with the state and society." However, it has not yet been possible to speak of genuine freedom of religious life in the country.

An analysis of historiographic works in the field of church-state relations in the USSR convinces us that its study is associated with certain difficulties, the main of which is the incompleteness of the source base. The lack of a scientific description, the fragmentary preservation and secrecy of most church archives at the disposal of religious organizations (the Moscow Patriarchate, dioceses, deaneries, parishes, monasteries, theological seminaries and academies) forces researchers in most cases to turn to the sources of theomachy power.

Studies of church-state relations are based mainly on a set of documents of the Council for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church, the Council for Religious Affairs (1943-1965) and the Council for Religious Affairs (1965-1991). Due to the specific nature of the activities of these state structures, their direct connection, subordination and accountability to the KGB and the ideological department of the Central Committee of the CPSU, most of the documents of their fund are still secret or access to them is limited. Completely declassified and available to a wide range of researchers are only the files of three inventories, containing information reports of authorized councils, memoranda to the Central Committee of the CPSU and the Council of Ministers, correspondence with ministries and departments, materials of cluster and all-Union meetings of authorized representatives, summary statistical data on religious organizations, information on income church structures and clergy for 1943–1990. The above documents are highly informative and research attractive. However, they do not exhaust the corpus of unique sources of the fund.

Of great value are the documents of the Council for Religious Affairs, included in inventory No. 7 "The files of the higher clergy for 1935-1983." It was drawn up in December 1990. It included 200 cases registered by the employees of the USSR Central State Archive for Administrative Offenses in December 1974 and accepted for permanent storage after the dissolution of the council. This inventory includes the personal files of the higher clergy, which in the SDRPTS and SDRK, and then in the Council for Religious Affairs, were filed for each major representative of the church hierarchy: bishop, archbishop, metropolitan, patriarch and were conducted from the moment of his election or appointment to office until his death or leaving service. The personal files of the hierarchs were at the disposal of a limited circle of council employees, its chairmen G.G. Karpova, V.A. Kuroyedova, K.M. Kharcheva, Yu.M. Khristoradnov, as well as their deputies. Scrupulous selection of materials for the formation of cases was carried out under their control.

The cases of this inventory are divided into two groups. The first includes the cases of the Russian episcopate (150 cases) and Georgian (21 cases) Orthodox churches, as well as representatives of the Old Believer hierarchy. The second is the cases of ministers of worship of other confessions who officially operated on the territory of the USSR. Such a systematization is explained by the fact that the leadership of the Russian and Georgian Orthodox Churches has spiritual names.

Next to the spiritual names are the full official titles of the hierarchs according to the hierarchical chairs they occupy. (Usually, representatives of the episcopate during their lives can move from one cathedra to another - change their place of service.) For the convenience of searching, the inventory indicates the names of the last cathedra that the hierarch occupied before his death or retirement (retirement). The spiritual names and titles of the hierarchs of the Orthodox churches of the Soviet period were officially used without reference to civil surnames, names and patronymics, not only in the religious organizations themselves, but also at the state level: in the means mass media, at international conferences, forums, etc. Therefore, the systematization of the personal files of the hierarchs was carried out strictly in alphabetical order their spiritual names and titles, with civil initials in brackets. The cases of bishops with the same name are given in alphabetical order of civil names.

The affairs of the episcopate of the Russian Orthodox Church are unequal in scope and content. The dossiers of some of the bishops who were under the close attention of the council are multi-volume collections of documents. For example, the file of Metropolitan Grigory (Chukov) of Leningrad consists of eight volumes, covering his many years and diverse activities in Finland, the USA, France and the Middle East, the Leningrad department and during the period of rector at the Leningrad Theological Academy. Four volumes include documents from the personal file of Archbishop Pavel (Golyshev) of Vologda, a re-emigrant and an implacable fighter for the independence of church administration from secular authorities.

Along with this, the case of Metropolitan Nikodim (Rotov) of Leningrad and Novgorod, an outstanding ecclesiastical diplomat and long-term chairman of the department for external church relations of the Moscow Patriarchate, is remarkable for its striking lack of content (only 20 pages). The case of Patriarch Sergius (Stragorodsky) is not very informative: there are no other documents besides questionnaires. Obviously, these dossiers were fairly "cleaned up" by the council's employees or not completely transferred to the GARF.

Nevertheless, most of the cases of Orthodox hierarchs represent a unique set of sources on the history of church-state relations in the USSR and the Russian Orthodox Church itself. For a researcher of Russian Orthodoxy abroad, the personal files of hierarchs who took part in the international contacts of the Church, members of foreign missions of the Russian Orthodox Church, and also those who returned from emigration to their homeland are valuable. The personal file of Bishop Alexy (Dekhterev) of Vilnius and Lithuania contains reports on the activities of the Russian missions in Jerusalem and Alexandria. The most important documents on the activities of Orthodox missions in Japan, Korea, China in the 1940s–1950s. are in the affairs of the Metropolitan of Krasnodar and Kuban Viktor (Svyatin), the archbishops of Rostov Nikandr (Viktorov), Penza and Saransk Polycarp (Priymak).

The position of Orthodox Russians in post-war Europe: Hungary, the Czech Republic, Serbia, their relationship with Russian Orthodox Church abroad are covered in the documents of the personal files of Bishop Innokenty (Sokal) of Smolensk, Archbishops Jonathan (Kopolovich) of Tambov and Michurinsky, Mstislav (Volonsevich) of Kirov and Slobodsky.

Taking into account the order of formation of personal files of hierarchs, the documents of each case can be conditionally divided into five groups. The first consists of documents containing primary confidential information about the hierarch: questionnaires, a detailed biography, written, as a rule, by the bishop himself, and a service record. This package of documents was submitted to the council by the Moscow Patriarchate during the period when the issue of appointing a candidate to the episcopal chair was being decided or immediately after the episcopal consecration. During the 1960s - early 1990s. the council had full control over the appointments of heads of religious organizations, especially the ROC. Consecration to the episcopal rank could take place only after the candidacy was agreed upon in the council.

The value of these documents lies in the fact that they provide the researcher with rich information about the personality of the hierarch, his family, closest relatives, upbringing, education, activities before and after taking the rank. Some hierarchs, possessing outstanding literary abilities, in their autobiographies tell about the most striking events of their life path. Archbishop of Molotov and Solikamsk Alexander (Tolstopyatov) describes his service in the Imperial Navy on Far East, participation in Russo-Japanese War during which he was taken prisoner. There are similar memories in the autobiography of the Archbishop of Tashkent Gabriel (Ogorodnikov), a participant in the First World War.

It is known that most of the hierarchs who served in the episcopal or priestly rank, in the 1920s-1930s. were subjected to repressions, were imprisoned and exiled. This information never appeared in their official biographies published on the pages of the Journal of the Moscow Patriarchy. In the personal files of the Council for Religious Affairs, it is present in an exhaustive volume. So, in the case of Archbishop Ermogen (Golubev) of Kaluga and Borovsk, it appears that he is “the son of a professor at the Kyiv Theological Academy and University, a graduate of the Moscow Theological Academy, a candidate of theology, being in the rank of archimandrite and the position of viceroy Kiev-Pechersk Lavra, was convicted by the OGPU in 1931 under Art. 58-11 for 10 years".

The service records of metropolitans, archbishops and bishops make it possible to trace the formation and development of the service career of a particular hierarch. There is accurate information about the positions occupied by senior clergy, transfers to a new place of service, awards, and retirements.

The second obligatory group of documents in each case is made up of materials characterizing the attitude of the hierarchs to the civil authorities, the state legislation on cults, their contacts with the representatives of the council. This section of cases includes the characteristics of the council's employees for bishops, extracts from the quarterly, semi-annual reports of the commissioners, revealing the activities of the bishop. Although these documents largely duplicate the cases of inventories No. 1, 2, their significance for the study of church-state relations in the regions and the country as a whole, especially during aggravation, is great. Compiled by members of the council during the "Khrushchev persecutions" of 1958–1964. the characteristics of the clergy are mild in relation to those of them who did not seriously rebuff the civil authorities. Bishops, on the other hand, who have taken an irreconcilable position and are ready to go to the end in defending the interests of the Church, are characterized by the inspectors and commissioners of the council extremely negatively. In this regard, the characterization of Bishop Pavel (Golyshev) of Perm and Solikamsk is indicative: “Bishop Pavel is very active, strives for splendor and magnificent church services. registration of religious communities or the seizure of their church buildings. In a year and a half in the diocese, he turned everything upside down and did more to strengthen the Church than all his predecessors did in fifteen years."

Next to the characteristics in the files are collected publications from newspapers concerning the life and work of bishops. Quite often, representatives of the council and local party organizations waged a real war in the press with the leaders of the Church, especially bishops, publishing anti-religious articles. In the 1960s few of the bishops managed to avoid custom-made newspaper persecution. Each article of "compromising" content was coordinated by the authors with the commissioner, corrected by him and certainly delivered to the central office of the council, where it settled in the personal file of the hierarch.

Special attention of the commissioners, employees of the council, up to its chairman, in the 1960s–1970s. raised the question of the attitude of the hierarchy to the "reform of church administration" forcibly introduced into church life at the Council of Bishops in July 1961. conflicts. After the resignation of N.S. Khrushchev, a group of ten bishops, headed by Archbishop Ermogen (Golubev) of Kaluga, tried to correct the abnormal situation in parish life, sending a letter to Patriarch Alexy I in the summer of 1965, which spoke of the negative consequences of the reform and called into question the canonical validity of the relevant decisions of the Council .

At the turn of two epochs - "thaw" and "stagnation" - this issue turned out to be a key one for the development of church-state relations. In most cases, the hierarchy reacted painfully to the limitation of its own financial and administrative power, realizing the perniciousness of anti-canonical innovations. The authorities wanted to maintain a favorable position for themselves, in which control over the administrative and financial life of the Church was comprehensive. That is why the issue of "parochial reform" found its documentary reflection in the affairs of every ruling bishop in the 1960s and 1970s. Council staff constantly reported to their leaders about the mindset and actions of the bishops. In one of the documents of the personal file of Bishop Hilarion (Prokhorov) of Ivanovo, the inspector of the council reported: “Although he was present at the Council in 1961 and voted for the approval of the new provision, he accepted it with hostility and still demands from church councils that all questions financial and economic activities of religious societies were coordinated with him.

The third important group in the personal files of hierarchs is official documents. This is the correspondence of bishops with the patriarch and the Holy Synod, which manages the affairs of the Moscow Patriarchate on various issues of church administration. Among the documents are numerous reports and memorandums on the state of the clergy, relations with the authorized council, the closure of churches and monasteries, data on deductions for the needs of the patriarchate and the Peace Fund. Many of the documents relate to personnel issues. Bishops themselves often asked the patriarch and the Synod to appoint them to one or another vacant see, much less often to retire. In the event of complaints from the localities, they wrote explanations, made attempts to get an audience with the patriarch or the manager of the affairs of the Moscow Patriarchate.

In addition, in the group of church official documents, the researcher will find the decrees of the patriarch and the definitions of the Synod on the appointment of bishops to the cathedra and their movement to a new place of service, the minutes of the Synod meetings at which personnel decisions were made. The overwhelming majority of the documents of this group were made on the official letterheads of the church authorities with the appropriate signatures and seals. The presence of internal correspondence at the disposal of the council staff indicates the existence of complete control by this organization over the entire administrative life of the ROC. Almost all official documents that came to the patriarchate from the diocesan administrations, as well as those that came from the patriarchal office, were duplicated or sent in reprinted form to the Council for Religious Affairs.

It should be noted that the representatives of the episcopate themselves maintained contact with the council, visiting the vice-chairmen or addressing the leadership of this structure in writing. In turn, the bishops wrote complaints to the council against the commissioners, often during the period of Khrushchev's anti-religious onslaught of 1958-1964. who violated the legislation on cults, allowed rude administration and interference in the affairs of the Church. At receptions in the council, the bishops raised the issues of taxation that worried them, the possibility of opening or preventing the closure of churches. Each visit of the bishop to the council was recorded, and a transcript of the conversation was compiled.

In 1965, the general public was greatly impressed by an open letter from the priests of the Moscow diocese, Gleb Yakunin and Nikolai Ashliman. It listed in detail the repressive actions carried out by the Council for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church, and pointed out the lack of resistance from the Moscow Patriarchate. The priests protested against "the lawless actions of the leaders and representatives of the council, who criminally violate the principles of socialist legality and the basic legislative provisions of the Soviet government, which determine the relationship between the Soviet state and the Church." The resonance of this speech was so significant that the question about the attitude towards the "open letters" and their authors was asked to each bishop who visited the council in 1965-1967, as evidenced by the transcripts of the conversations.

The fourth group of documents of the personal files of hierarchs covers the activities of diocesan bishops at the place of service. The materials of personal files show that a stream of complaints from disgruntled clerics, members of the executive bodies of church communities and parishioners went to the council from the dioceses. Quite often the letters ended with categorical demands to remove this or that bishop from his post. These documents vividly characterize the entire complexity and inconsistency of the internal church life of the 1960s–1970s, which became the result of the anticanonical reform of church administration. The removal of the clergy from real power in the parishes, the monopoly of the communities on financial and economic activities, supported by all-powerful representatives, undermined the authority of the hierarchy and, in essence, contributed to the destruction of the church organism from the inside. The attempts of the hierarchs to put things in order in the parishes by administrative methods were regarded by the representatives of the council only as a "violation of the law", "a manifestation of lust for power and self-interest." They usually found facts of opposition from the commissioners and his henchmen from among the "church activists" in numerous complaints to the council and the Moscow Patriarchate. The consequences of such a struggle could be deplorable for the bishop. Often they were deprived of their chairs, transferred to a new place of service, or retired.

Along with negative correspondence, there are letters and telegrams in defense of the hierarchs in the files. Their presence suggests that in the 1960s–1970s. among the clergy and believers, an understanding of the enormous role in the fate of the episcopate of curators from the central apparatus of the council was firmly established.

Complaints and apologies against bishops are accompanied by documents that have become their direct consequence. These are materials of auditing paperwork: reports of deans and rectors of churches with resolutions of bishops, acts of audits, investigations, inspections of the activities of the bishop and the diocesan administration, carried out by employees of the Moscow Patriarchate. They served as the basis for the adoption by the patriarch, the Synod and other church authorities of the relevant personnel decisions.

The fifth group of documents contained in the files of the hierarchs are their writings and sermons, which, however, are rare. Not all hierarchs had creative abilities and were good preachers. In addition, the members of the council were interested in those works and speeches of the bishops, in which, in their opinion, anti-Soviet statements were allowed, ideas that contradicted the spirit of Soviet legislation on cults, calls for a change in the existing situation of the Church. Usually, such sermons, delivered by bishops in the church, at the service, were secretly recorded by authorized people or KGB officers, after which they were sent in decrypted form to the central office of the council in Moscow. A complete collection of sermons could be compiled from the personal files of an outstanding scientist and preacher of the 20th century. Archbishop of Simferopol Luke (Voyno-Yasenetsky), canonized by the Church as a saint. Polemic articles and historical and canonical references, texts of speeches published abroad are contained in the materials of the personal file of Archbishop Ermogen (Golubev) of Kaluga, the leader of the church opposition of the 1960s–1970s.

The personal files of Orthodox hierarchs contain photographs and reproductions from calendars and magazines published by the Moscow Patriarchate.

Thus, the personal files of the episcopate of the Russian Orthodox Church represent a complex historical source that is diverse in nature and content. Its correct, unbiased use provides the researcher with valuable information about the religious figures who were in the leadership of the Russian Orthodox Church, expands the authors' opportunities in an objective assessment of personalities, their role in national and church history.

However, when coming into contact with materials hostile to the Church authorities, the researcher must remember the subjectivity, specific goals and objectives of those who formed the case. In addition, the biased and careless use of documents from personal files from the fund of the Council for Religious Affairs can damage the historical truth, cause irreparable damage. It is no coincidence that access to the documents included in inventory No. 7 is limited: they are issued to the reading room with the permission of the GARF Directorate after a thorough examination by experts of the materials requested by the researcher. This procedure is established in accordance with paragraph 3 of Art. 25 of the Federal Law "On Archival Affairs in Russian Federation", which provides for "a restriction on access to archival documents containing information about the personal and family secrets of a citizen, his private life ... for a period of 75 years from the date of creation of these documents."

Discuss article

Odintsov M.I. Pimen (Izvekov) is the last "Soviet" patriarch. Introductory article, comments and preparation of the text for publication // Domestic archives. 1995. No. 1; Shkarovsky M.V. Russian Orthodox Church under Stalin and Khrushchev. M., 1999; Odintsov M.I. Russian Orthodox Church in the XX century: the history of relations with the state and society. M., 2002; Vasily (Krivoshein), archbishop. Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church and the election of Patriarch Pimen. St. Petersburg, 2004; Vasilyeva O.Yu. Russian Orthodox Church and Vatican II. M., 2004; Firsov S.L. Time in destiny. His Holiness Patriarch Sergius (Stragorodsky) of Moscow and All Russia. On the Genesis of "Sergianism" in the Russian Church Tradition of the 20th Century. SPb., 2005.

Odintsov M.I. The Russian Orthodox Church in the 20th century... S. 159–160.

Shkarovsky M.V. Decree op. pp. 359–360.

Odintsov M.I. Russian Orthodox Church in the 20th century... S. 161.

Vasilyeva O.Yu. Decree op. pp. 116–117.

Odintsov M.I. Pimen (Izvekov) - the last "Soviet" patriarch... P. 29; He is. Russian Orthodox Church in the 20th century... S. 39.

Marchenko A.N. Documents on the history of the Russian Orthodox Church during the "Khrushchev thaw" in the archives of the Ural region // Domestic archives. 2006. No. 2. P. 50.

See: GARF. F. 6991. Op. 1–11 (13,281 items).

Kalinin V.N. Church and Council for Religious Affairs // Parish: Orthodox Economic Bulletin. M., 2007. S. 46.

GARF. F. 6991. Op. 1, 2, 6.

Such a name is called during monastic tonsure and usually differs from the secular one. The naming of a monastic name is an ancient tradition of Eastern monasticism, an integral attribute and symbol of the monastic way of life.

GARF. F. 6991. Op. 7. D. 137-144.

There. D. 173–176.

There. D. 169.

There. D. 109.

There. D. 3.

There. D. 28, 29, 86, 101.

There. D. 149, 155, 166.

There. D. 2. L. 1–3; D. 33. L. 7.

There. D. 43. L. 3.

There. D. 173. L. 23–24.

Tsypin V., archpriest. History of the Russian Church 1917–1997 M., 1997. S. 410.

GARF. F. 6991. Op. 7. D. 52. L. 14.

Shkarovsky M.V. Decree op. S. 276; Shtrikker G. Russian Orthodox Church in the Soviet era. M., 1995. Book. 2. P. 54–62.

GARF. F. 6991. Op. 7. D. 56. L. 43; D. 107. L. 78.

In our time, when church-legal consciousness is in a difficult state, there is no precisely formulated attitude to the ancient church decrees, reference to them may be unconvincing. At the same time, the Russian Church of the modern period has a whole mass of useful documents adopted over the past decades. These documents express the official ecclesiastical position on many issues, the solution of which can and should be guided by these latest decisions. Execution and adherence to these decisions are obligatory for all members of the ROC, from the layman to the patriarch. Unfortunately, many clergy and laity are unfamiliar with their content, knowledge of which could prevent many unwanted problems. Therefore, we decided to start publishing the most interesting and relevant selections from the latest rulings of the Russian Church. We express the hope that acquaintance with them will bring great benefit to our believers.

1. “In the process of dialogue(with non-believers and non-Orthodox)our Church does not accept attempts to "mix faiths", joint prayer activities that artificially combine confessional or religious traditions. However, for Orthodox Christians it has always been permissible to worship common Christian shrines that are not located in Orthodox churches. In the practice of the Orthodox Church, the respectful presence of non-Orthodox and non-believers in an Orthodox church during worship is not forbidden - for example, it was the opportunity for visiting the church of Hagia Sophia by the ambassadors of Grand Duke Vladimir that opened the way for Russia to accept Orthodoxy.(“On Issues of the Internal Life and External Activities of the Russian Orthodox Church.” Bishops’ Council of the Russian Orthodox Church, 2008). “The Orthodox Church excludes any possibility of liturgical communion with non-Orthodox. In particular, it seems unacceptable for Orthodox Christians to participate in liturgical ceremonies associated with so-called ecumenical or interfaith services.”(“On the Attitude of the Orthodox Church towards Non-Orthodox Religions and Inter-Confessional Organizations.” The document was approved at a meeting of the Holy Synod on April 20, 2005).

2.“The Church asserts that the state has no right to interfere in family life, except in cases where there is a proven danger to the life, health and moral condition of the child and when this danger cannot be eliminated through help to parents and through methods of persuasion. At the same time, the actions of state bodies should be based on clear and unambiguous legal criteria. It is the parents who must determine the methods and forms of raising children within the boundaries outlined by the need to ensure the life, health and moral state of the child. This is a God-ordained right and duty of parents. The current practice of removing a child from a family under the pretext of “insufficient material well-being” is completely unacceptable. The parents' lack of sufficient material resources should be the basis for providing financial support to the family, primarily at the expense of state or municipal budgets. Lack of funds from parents cannot be considered as a condition for the application by the guardianship and guardianship authorities of measures aimed at the actual destruction of a low-income family, in particular, by removing children from their parents.(The Council of Bishops in 2013 "The position of the Russian Orthodox Church on the reform of family law and the problems of juvenile justice").

3. The Holy Synod decided (determination of December 25-26, 2012, magazine 130) “to remind archpastors and pastors of the need to explain the meaning of the Sacrament of Unction to the flock taking part in it, especially when during the days of Great Lent it is performed in monasteries and parishes with a large gathering of worshipers, and to draw the attention of the latter to the fact that in the absence of the appearance or aggravation of severe diseases and injuries, participation in this Sacrament more than once a year indicates a misunderstanding". The Synod also approved the “Following of Holy Elea, performed quickly”, for those cases when the Sacrament of Unction needs to be performed on sick people who are in hospital.

4. The practice of "surrogate motherhood" is condemned by the Church as unnatural and " is a humiliation of the human dignity of a woman, whose body in this case is considered as a kind of incubator. A child born in this way is not to blame for anything. But since his baptism takes place according to the faith of his parents and godparents, who undertake to educate him in Orthodoxy, then “If the parents do not bring explicit repentance for their deeds, and the recipients actually express agreement with the committed sinful act, then there can be no question of Christian education. The refusal to baptize infants in such a case will correspond to the Orthodox tradition, which implies the consent of the person being baptized, and in the case of the baptism of an infant, his parents and godparents, with the teachings of the Church. Such a refusal will also have a pastoral significance, since in this way society will receive a clear signal from the Church that the practice of “surrogate motherhood” is unacceptable from a Christian point of view. about baptism is postponed until the time of a conscious personal choice of the child ". The issue of the baptism of such a child can be resolved through the diocesan bishop. “The performance by a priest of the Sacrament of Baptism in such a case without the blessing of the bishop serves as the basis for applying canonical bans to this priest. In mortal danger, the baptism of infants is blessed, regardless of the circumstances of their birth."On the baptism of infants born with the help of a" surrogate mother "". The document was approved by the Council of Bishops in 2016).

5. The Church does not believe that cremation can somehow harm the soul of the deceased person and his posthumous fate, but recognizes burial in the ground as the norm, as more in line with biblical symbolism and reverent attitude towards the body - the temple of the Holy Spirit ( 1 Cor. 6:19). “In the event that such burial is not provided for by local secular legislation or is associated with the need to transport the deceased over long distances or is impossible for other objective reasons, the Church, considering cremation an undesirable phenomenon and not approving it, may treat the fact of cremation of the body of the deceased with indulgence . After cremation, the ashes must be buried in the ground.(“On the Christian burial of the dead.” The document was approved by the Council of Bishops in 2016).

According to hydrologists, Lake Shartash was formed about a million years ago. Archaeologists have found traces of the presence of primitive people of the Neolithic and Bronze Ages on the banks. The shape of the reservoir, located in the north-east of Yekaterinburg, resembles a bean from a bird's eye view.

Water mirror with an area of ​​​​over 7 square meters. km stretched from north to south for 4 km, and in the latitudinal direction - for 2.5 km. Max Depth lake Shartash reaches 5 m. The length of the coastline is about 12 km.

A part of the May Walk route, the so-called Shartash round-the-world trip, runs along the coast, and places for mass recreation for city residents have been organized.

In the coniferous forest, a unique natural landmark "Stone tents" has been preserved, about the origin of which many scientific versions and near-scientific hypotheses are put forward, including those related to the existence of an ancient civilization.

Despite the fact that Shartash is located within the metropolis, the animal and vegetable world is diverse: waterfowl and songbirds, amphibians and reptiles settle here. Hares are found in the coastal zone, and squirrels jump through the pines, willingly making contact with humans for the sake of treats. There used to be foxes, wolves and elks in the vicinity. Fishermen are pleased with the abundance of ichthyofauna and a lively bite.

Rest and beaches on Shartash

The shores and the forested area are occupied by beaches, boat stations, recreation centers, cafes and restaurants, pavilions with barbecue facilities, and walking and cycling paths. Shartash is not included in the list of bodies of water allowed for swimming, which is indicated by warning signs installed everywhere. However, Yekaterinburg residents treat such prohibitions with apathy, since visually the water seems clean.

Numerous recreational locations offer a variety of leisure activities. Bicycles, boats, catamarans and fishing equipment can be rented. Many species of fish live in the lake, mainly chebak, perch, bream, roach, crucian carp, carp, ripus, gudgeon are caught on the bait.

In summer, the lake attracts lovers of beach activities. A number of establishments have a complete infrastructure for a comfortable pastime surrounded by wildlife. For example, the SunDali complex (check-in from the side of the concrete goods), capable of simultaneously receiving 3,000 guests, is equipped with sun loungers, sports grounds, and a children's playground. The Peski Country Club, located nearby, offers well-appointed rooms and detached houses. At the service of vacationers there are baths, a swimming pool, a shooting range, fishing, a golf park, laser tag, and sports equipment rental. Also on this part of the coast there are "Stone" beach, which has more than 30 gazebos with barbecue areas, the "Sparta" surf station, which provides boards and equipment for rent, the "Izba" recreation center, "Elf" and "Sands" rope parks .

Story

The hydronym has Turkic roots. It is believed that the name comes from the words "sar" (yellow) and "tash" (stone). At the beginning of the 18th century, the village of Shartash, founded in the 1660s, became one of the Ural refuges for the Old Believers, where schismatics persecuted by the Orthodox Church and the tsarist authorities found shelter and built sketes.

In the lake area in 1745, the peasant Erofey Markov found deposits of the first ore gold in Russia, and a “gold rush” began in the Urals, which almost led to the complete disappearance of the reservoir. The adits of the mine quickly filled with water, and the miners believed that draining Shartash would solve this problem. A channel was dug for drainage, through which water flowed into the Pyshma basin, but the expected effect was not achieved. Only in the 20th century it became clear that the granite massif, within which the lake basin is located, and the Berezovsky gold deposit have a different geological structure and depth of underground sources.

In the last century, another anthropogenic factor caused damage to the landscape. Quartz sand from Lake Shartash was first used as an additive in copper smelting in blast furnaces, and then used in the construction of Yekaterinburg factories and residential buildings. The pits eventually became overgrown with grass and shrubs, but are still visible.

Currently, Shartash is drainless, filling up due to atmospheric precipitation and springs gushing at the bottom. The bottom soil is predominantly rocky, covered with silt deposits on top.

In 2014, the lake received the status of a protected natural monument of regional significance.

How to get to Lake Shartash

The equipped space adjoins the Komsomolsky microdistrict in the Kirovsky District, where the Shartash forest park and Stone Tents are located.

The easiest way from the city to public transport- drive along the street. Malyshev to st. Vysotsky and opposite the KOSK "Russia" along one of the paths to go into the forest. Shuttle taxis No. 04 and No. 060 follow up final stop"Kirov wholesale market".

When traveling to private car you need to turn right from the Yegorshinsky approach after the railway crossing, and then make a right turn again at the next intersection on the street. Rest, the pointer "Forge" will serve as a guide.

Another route is along the street. Vysotsky turn left after the "Stone tents" and leave the car in a paid parking lot. Within walking distance from the lake there are stops "Stone tents" (trams No. 13, 15, 23, 32, buses No. 25, 40, 61).

City buses No. 4 and No. 25 go through the Sands stop.

The way by car is to drive through KOR, and after refueling Lukoil, turn left at the T-shaped fork to the village of Peski.

Connoisseurs wild beaches away from the benefits of civilization, the eastern coast of Shartash is suitable, which is accessed from Blucher and Proezzhaya streets. The nearest stops are Rybakov (buses No. 5, 10, 112, 114) and Izoplit Village (bus No. 10).

To call a taxi online, you can use the mobile applications Gett, Uber, Yandex. Taxi.

Lake Shartash was formed about 1 million years ago.
Around the world, 15 lakes are under the protection of UNESCO, including Shartash Island.
Near the lake - unique natural monument- Shartashsky stone tents located in the middle of a pine forest.
The name of the lake itself comes from two words of Turkic origin: “sor” - “tash”, which means “round stone”.
Round, flat granite boulders polished by water and wind are found along the entire coast. They surprise with their geometrically correct shape.
What are these stone boulders? What kind of energy do they carry?
Who created them? Why are these places called places of power?
What is known...
For a long time, on the northern shores of Lake Bolshoy Shartash, there was only one Old Believer village Shartash. At the beginning of the 20th century, a small settlement of Peski appeared on the southern coast, and in the 30s, at some distance from the eastern coast, the village of Izoplit arose with a factory for the manufacture of peat insulation boards (at present, there is no peat production, there is a floriculture farm on the site of the factory " Flowers of the Urals). On the southeastern side of the lake in the 1980s, on the site of the Shartash swamp, the Komsomolsky microdistrict was built.

Nowadays, Shartash is an endorheic reservoir. The lake has an almost regular bean shape, with its convex side facing east. It stretches from North to South for 4 km, from West to East - for 2-2.5 km and has a mirror area of ​​7.0 sq. km. Modern coastline, about 12 km long, is slightly indented. The bottom of the lake slopes down to the center. Most of it is covered with dark olive-colored silt - sapropel, and in recent years it has been heavily littered. The average depth of the lake is 3 m, and the largest in the center of the reservoir is 4.7 m.

"Round Lake" or "Yellow Stone"?

Lake Shartash It is difficult to determine where the name of the lake and the village came from. If we take as a basis the main component - "ball" and "tash" from the Turkic language, we can translate "shartash" as a lake " yellow stone". A similar explanation is given in his toponymic dictionaries by the famous Ural toponymist A.K. Matveev. He connects such a translation with the fact that during the destruction of granites, within which the basin of the lake is laid, yellow-brown rubble and yellow sand are formed.
Free translation of the village name as " round stone” or “Whetstone” is scientifically incorrect, although the name “Round Stone” or “Round Lake” is most suitable for the shape of the reservoir.

Shartash and the "most ancient" man.

Shartashsky Kamennye PalatkiThe relationship between the lake and man began in ancient times, in the Neolithic (5-7 thousand years ago) and Bronze Age (2-3 thousand years ago). The ancient man appreciated the favorable conditions of the area and built parking lots and settlements (unfortified settlements) along the ancient shores of the lake.
Archaeologists have found several Neolithic and Bronze Age sites on the capes of the western shore of Shartash (Cape Runduk) and its eastern shore, in the Krasnaya Gorka tract. Later, in the era of the Iron Age (2300-2700 years ago), primitive people found places for religious rites - altars, which were usually located in the mountains, on high cliffs. Scientists claim that the Shartash Stone Tents were such a sacrificial place.

Shartash village.

The village of Shartash, founded in 1662, at the beginning of the 18th century gained all-Russian fame as one of the organizational centers of the Old Believers. She was a safe haven and transit base to Siberia for the persecuted schismatics. The main occupation of the inhabitants of Shartash was trade, and every year they traveled to the Nizhny Novgorod Fair, Moscow and even Little Russia. Most Shartash residents had Moscow roots.

Shartash and the Gold Rush.

In 1745, in the area of ​​the Berezovka River, a tributary of the Pyshma, a well-known miner, a resident of the village of Shartash, Yerofey Markov, discovered the first native gold in Russia. Since 1748 (the year the village of Berezovsky was founded), the deposit has been continuously developed and, as the mines deepen, “fights” with groundwater.
Alexander's ditch on Shartash In 1756, as historical sources testify, a ditch 7-10 m deep, up to 5-7 m wide, 7 versts. In the most difficult conditions, without any equipment, the workers of the gold mines - exiled migrants, some of them - convicts and recruits, driven by a shout and a whip - crushed granite with a pick, pick and shovel and transported it on wheelbarrows, forming high banks above the ditch. However, this ditch, called the "Alexandrovsky ditch", did not give a large influx of water into the mines, but over time it was silted up and began to overgrow.
In 1824, mining engineer O.S. Osipov suggested new plan, very original: by means of dams and canals, it was necessary to connect the lakes Bolshoi and Maly Shartash into a single reservoir in order to raise the water level in it by several meters. This would increase the flow of water along the Alexander Ditch to the upper reaches of the Berezovka River. This plan included making three pools of water along the Alexander Ditch in ledges, each 10 m lower than the other, and under the ledges to arrange water wheels that would set the mine pumps in motion. But this plan was rejected by the mining authorities as costly and time-consuming.
In our time, the Aleksandrovsky moat has been preserved in a small area: from the lake to Fabrichnaya Street, and the rest has long been covered up and occupied by collective gardens. Water in the preserved section of the moat accumulates only after the snow melts. There is no connection with the lake, because there is a road near the shore.
Thus, in the middle of the 18th century, the lake experienced the first noticeable economic impact of man.

Humboldt's plan failed.

A fragment of a topographic map of the environs of Sverdlovsk. 1929 Three quarters of a century later, the lake was again "attacked" by people. At the end of the 20s of the 19th century, the Berezovsky mines deepened noticeably and began to be flooded with groundwater even more. Just at this time, in June 1829, Alexander Humboldt (1769-1859, scientist, traveler, one of the founders of German natural science) arrived in the Urals, in Yekaterinburg. Having examined the lake and the Berezovsky mines, he came to the conclusion that it was necessary to lower the lake to Pyshma. In his opinion, a decrease in the water level in the lake would have led to the drainage of the surrounding swamps, and this should have reduced the flow of groundwater into the mines. The authority of a world-famous scientist did not allow listening to the statement of mining masters, in particular, L.I. Brusnitsyn, who knew the sheological structure of the area well and did not believe in the success of such a thing. And the mountain authorities were little interested in the fate of the lake: after all, it was about gold!
Already after the departure of Humboldt from the Urals, in 1831-1832, from the center of the lake to the north (towards the modern radio station), they began to build an underground adit and a ditch (the people called it the Humboldt ditch), through which water from the lake rushed into the Kalinovka River, and from it to Pyshma.
Stones near the shore of Lake ShartashShortly, a small silty lake remained on the site of Lake Shartash (the water area of ​​\u200b\u200bthe lake was reduced by 16 times compared to its present size), to the chagrin and disadvantage of the Shartash population, one of whose occupations was fishing. At that time, the southwestern part of the lake was completely drained and turned into a flowering meadow, which still retains the name "the bay of mowing", a mountainous cape on the western shore of the reservoir - Cape Runduk (Runduk - chest) was released from under the water. So in the XVII century in Tula and in other cities middle lane Russians called large rectangular chests with a lid for storing food). Cape Runduk, which flows into the lake, in its appearance resembles such a large chest - its slopes are almost sheer, and the surface is flat, covered with a pine forest.
Fortunately, the final drainage of the lake did not occur, since the adit was covered with silt after 15 months. Meanwhile, the waters in the mines continued to interfere with gold mining. Therefore, the idea of ​​further draining the lake was abandoned. Humboldt is wrong! Yes, it could not be otherwise. Those few days that he spent studying the area could not give reliable results. Only in the 20th century, hydrogeologists proved that the structure of the Shartashsky granite massif (within which most of the lake bed is located) and the Berezovsky ore field have a different geological structure and depth of fractured waters.
Gradually, mainly due to atmospheric precipitation and snowmelt, as well as underwater springs, the lake began to increase in size and in the mid-80s of the XIX century, Lake Shartash reached its previous size, and after a while even larger than before the water was drained : this is how the artificial connection of Lake Shartash with the water system of the Pyshma basin ended.

The source and the village of Sands.

Lake ShartashThe natural flow of the lake into the Iset River - Shartashsky old flow, as old maps of the mid-18th and early 19th centuries show, was carried out through south bay, somewhat west of the village of Sands. Already at the very end of the last century, the Old Stok was not distinguished by constancy and, flowing through the swamp, did not always bring its waters to the Iset (the Shartashsky Stok, in the past the left tributary of the Iset, had a mouth near the village, now the city of Aramil).
By the beginning of the 20th century, in the area of ​​\u200b\u200bthis Stok, the surf of sand, pebbles, clay and shells created a coastal rampart along which the road passed. Behind the road in 1910, the village of Peski arose (it existed until 1987, until it was flooded due to a temporary rise in waters).
The sand of Lake Shartash is pure quartz, with a small admixture of gray clay, was used as varnich sand - a necessary flux additive, along with lime, in the blast-furnace smelting of copper. The main and almost the only supplier of building sand for Yekaterinburg factories was the beach of Lake Shartash. Since 1910, sand has been extracted from the underwater part. In winter, the work moved deeper into the lake on the ice. That is why there are holes in the coastal part of the reservoir, which you must beware of when swimming. Evidence of the intensive development of sand in the past are notable cuts along the banks (eastern, southeastern), now already overgrown with grass and shrubs.

The younger brother is Small Shartash.

Lake Maly Shartash from space At a short distance from Lake Bolshoi Shartash in the southeast direction there is a small lake - Maly Shartash - among the swampy lowlands of the Maloshartash swamp.
Lake Small Shartash is a big Shartash in miniature. The same oval shape, elongated from north to south for a length of less than one kilometer. The width of the reservoir is 400 m, the average depth is 1.2 m, the maximum is 1.8 m, the mirror area is 3.4 ha. This lake is located 9 m below the Bolshoy Shartash level. Streams run out of the lake, feeding the Istok River (the left tributary of the Iset River). On the western shore of the reservoir there are also granite rocks - Small Shartashsky - a copy of a large, but smaller size. Their height is 8-9 m. The lake is heavily overgrown with sedge, cattail, reed. There is less than 2 ha of open water left.
In the vicinity of the lake and on its northwestern shore, archaeologists have discovered traces of an ancient human settlement - from the Neolithic to the Iron Age. Despite the proximity to the metropolis, the fauna of Lake Maly Shartash is very diverse - in spring there are a lot of migratory songbirds, many waterfowl, amphibians, reptiles, including snakes and vipers; from mammals - foxes, hares, squirrels. There are fish - chebak, perch, bream. The lake is visited only knowledgeable people, access by cars is not possible.

Today we are going on a semi-circumnavigation along the shore of Lake Shartash (along its eastern, uninhabited shore). The trip was carried out as part of the events of the City Speleological Section of Yekaterinburg, and the former instructor of the tourist club Maydanik Boris Zelmanovich led the group along the route.

The thread of the route is as follows : Shartashskiye Kamennye Palatki - Tatishchevskiye quarries - wharfs of the former river shipping company- ancient runoff from Lake Shartash - granite quarries - drained peat bogs near the village of Izoplit - quarry "Stone Flower" - Alexander's ditch - ancient Old Believer cemetery of Shartash village.

We can say with confidence that the forest park in the vicinity of Lake Shartash is a unique museum ancient history under open sky. Ancient man began to settle in these places in the Neolithic (5-7 thousand years ago) and Bronze Age (2-3 thousand years ago). Archaeologists have found several Neolithic and Bronze Age sites on the capes of the western shore of Shartash (Cape Runduk) and its eastern shore, in the Krasnaya Gorka tract. Later, in the era of the Iron Age (2300-2700 years ago), primitive people equipped places where religious rites were held. Scientists claim that the Shartash Stone Tents were such a sacrificial place.

Now the Shartash Stone Tents are located within the city, and half a century ago it was not easy to get to them. Lost among the dense pine forest and the marshes surrounding it (Kalinovskoye, Shartashskoye, Chistovskoye), they were considered inaccessible and were called the "Urochishe Palatki".
Rock outcrops stretched from west to east for about 80 meters. On the top of the rock, at the western tip, there is a man-made stone bowl, which was supposedly used for sacrifices. At the foot of the cliff, bronze figurines, shards of dishes, arrowheads were found ...

In 1759, there was a big fire in Yekaterinburg, 8 factories burned down. It was decided not to waste forests on restoration work, but to use flagstone from the Palatki tract. Annihilation loomed over the Stone Tents. They were saved from destruction by the efforts of the Ural Society of Natural Science Lovers (UOLE). Currently, Kamennye Palatki has the status of a natural monument. Sverdlovsk region and declared as an object cultural heritage. archaeological sites were identified as a result of selective scientific research from the 1950s to the 1980s. Continuous scientific research in this natural area has never been carried out, especially in forest areas, where such monuments as ancient sanctuaries, burial grounds, etc. are usually located.

On the northern side of the rocks, already in Soviet times, in the 60s of the 20th century, a granite amphitheater was built for pioneer gatherings by the forces of the forest guard and the City Forestry.

A lot of money was spent on the arrangement of the forest park in Soviet times. Forest paths were laid and filled, equipped with all kinds of sports equipment, so that Soviet citizens could walk, play sports, and admire the beauties. All for man, all in the name of man.

Some sections of the swamps adjacent to the lake were drained, some quarry workings were cleared, in which limestone was once mined, gazebos and bridges were built. In the people, one of these quarries, on the southeast coast, was called the "Indian village." We will go to this quarry a little later, and now on the route - Tatishchevsky quarry, located opposite the former building of the river shipping company. Stone was mined in the quarry for the construction of a factory and a fortress on the Iset River, for bridges and foundations of houses.

Pleasure boats departed from the pier, rolling vacationing Soviet citizens.

At the beginning of the 20th century, a small settlement of Peski appeared on the southern shore of the lake, which existed from 1910 to 1987, until it was flooded due to a temporary rise in the water level in the lake. The sand of Lake Shartash was used as a flux additive in the blast-furnace smelting of copper. The main and almost the only supplier of building sand for Yekaterinburg factories was the sand of the beach of Lake Shartash.
The second pier, or rather its remains, for pleasure boats near the village of Sands.

The natural flow of the lake into the Iset River - Shartashsky Stary Stok was carried out through the southern bay near the village of Sands. Already at the end of the 19th century, the Old Stok was not distinguished by constancy and, flowing through the swamp, did not always bring its waters to the Iset (the Shartashsky Stok, the left tributary of the Iset, had a mouth near the village, now the city of Aramil).

In the pine forest of the eastern shore of Lake Shartash, there are many granite quarries. One of these quarries with a depth of about 2 meters and an area slightly less than a hectare - the "Indian village" - was chosen by members of the largest community of Ural neo-pagans - Svarozhich. A temple was built in the quarry, where the modern “grandchildren of Perun” spend pagan holidays, discuss plans for the next meetings, strive to comprehend the ancient wisdom of their ancestors, enjoy life, changing and improving themselves, want to change this world for the better.

Near the "Indian village" is another interesting quarry. The foresters cleared the quarry from the earth, arranged places for fires, built tables and seats from stone. Until our time, all this grace has not survived. Everything needs attention and care. Giant granite slabs of rounded shape, steps, platforms, even walls made of layered granite are impressive ...

And see the heated imagination in all this temple complexes built on a natural, natural foundation of granite slabs. Why not? According to archaeologists, back in (3-2) centuries BC. the shores of Lake Shartash were inhabited. And for sure ancient man worshiped his numerous pagan Gods, performed religious rites. Not necessarily in this career, but somewhere in these places for sure. And hypersensitive people, psychics feel the special energy of these places.

We leave the quarry, we go out onto the road leading to the Izoplitovsky quarry. Not far from the village of Izoplit is our next object - a beautiful peat bog. A fairly decent road leads to it, which flows into the narrow-gauge railway that used to be here, leading to nowhere, because it ends in a dead end.

In Soviet times, peat, along with firewood and coal, was the main raw material for energy and factories. In December 1964, through the gas pipeline "Bukhara-Ural" came to Sverdlovsk natural gas. Peat was significantly inferior to gas and oil products both in terms of the cost of production (with transportation over long distances) and in terms of calorific value. The need for peat gradually faded away, and peat power engineering practically ceased to exist.
Enormous funds were invested in the development of this peat bog: a road and a narrow-gauge railway were built, work began on preparing the peat bog for operation. And all this is abandoned as unnecessary ... And we admire the beautiful drainage ditches.

In order to return again to the eastern shore of Lake Shartash, we decided to cross a small hill, all dug up by numerous quarries. The hill, it turns out, was chosen by the Yekaterinburg airsoft players, who equipped the training ground here. Around the fortifications, defensive walls, obstacle strips, harmoniously inscribed in the relief of the quarries.

On the eastern shore of the lake, next to the Izoplitovsky beach, there is another interesting quarry "Stone Flower". They say that once the quarry was filled with water both in spring and summer. In the center of the composition was a sculpture in the form of a crystal - "Stone Flower" (now it is destroyed). On the stones, oriented from east to west, it was possible to approach stone flower- walk on water like on dry land. Before us is the law of entropy in action: everything that is not touched by human care and love goes to destruction, to chaos, to the growth of disorder.

The northernmost pier in the area of ​​the village of Izoplit.

Lake Bolshoy Shartash is very ancient, according to scientists, its age is about 1 million years. It formed when Ural mountains were still being formed, and dinosaurs were walking along its shores.
In the lake area in 1745, a well-known miner, a resident of the village of Shartash Erofey Markov, discovered the first native gold in Russia. Since 1748, the deposit in the upper reaches of the Berezovka River has been continuously developed, but the mines were constantly flooded with water.

In the 19th century, the authorities of Yekaterinburg made repeated attempts to drain Lake Shartash by draining water into the Pyshma River basin, since the high water level, according to local experts, led to the flooding of gold mines. For this purpose, a channel was dug - the Alexander Ditch. The lake gave a lot of water for the needs of the gold mines. And it didn't go unnoticed. The Shartash area was reduced by about half, the lake was dying. Fortunately, the final drainage of the lake did not occur, all attempts of human economic impact on the lake failed. Only in the 20th century, hydrogeologists proved that the structure of the Shartashsky granite massif, within which most of the lake bed is located, and the Berezovsky ore field have a different geological structure. Gradually, mainly due to precipitation, melting snow, as well as underwater springs, the lake increased in size and in the mid-80s of the 19th century reached its former size.

Long before the founding of Yekaterinburg on the northern shore of Lake Shartash in 1662, a village was founded, more precisely, the Shartash settlement. The word "sloboda" is identical to the word "relaxation", i.e. the inhabitants of the settlements were de facto declared as "freer". The Old Believers who fled from Nikon's church reforms settled in these places for a long time. They were originally from the Nizhny Novgorod lands and called themselves Kerzhaks after the name of the Nizhny Novgorod river Kerzhenets.
The Shartashians considered themselves “freer” also because they were almost not tied to the land, i.e. were not peasants, traded, were engaged in crafts and were quite wealthy people. Among the Old Believers were also numerous representatives of the nobility - the boyar elite of the 17th century, who did not accept Nikon's reforms and fled to the Urals and Siberia. They said that the officials tried not to meddle here, they understood that the people here believe in a special way, work conscientiously and categorically do not want to deal with the authorities. In the 18th century, the settlement gained all-Russian fame as one of the organizational centers of the Old Believers. She was a safe haven and transit base to Siberia for the persecuted schismatics.
In our time, in the village of Shartash, an old Old Believer cemetery is still preserved. There is little written about him, and you might think that he does not exist at all. In a small forest, ancient graves with stone and wooden tombstones are still preserved.

The inscriptions are old, dilapidated and faded, and are read with great difficulty. On one of the monuments, the words are carved: "Rest to Christ God the soul of the deceased slave, where there is no sorrow, nothing, but eternal life." On the other: "Holy God, holy strong." And although the cemetery is clearly abandoned, people come here from time to time - in some places the graves are decorated with faded artificial flowers.
According to local historians, the first mention of this churchyard was recorded in 1831, the last burial took place in 1955.

Our local history and tourist route is completed. We thank Boris Zelmanovich for an interesting, informative trip.

The total length of the route is 13 km.

End.